H.R. 450: Enumerated Powers Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=h111-450

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enumerated Powers Act’.

Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause

• ‘Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.’

Sponsor:

• Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]

Cosponsors [as of 2009-03-07]

• Rep. Dean Heller [R-NV]
• Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]
• Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA]
• Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN]
• Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA]
• Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
• Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA]
• Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ]
• Rep. David Roe [R-TN]
• Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]
• Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
• Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
• Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT]
• Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
• Rep. Connie Mack [R-FL]

Gee, I wonder why there are no democrat sponsors for this bill ?

Don't democrats want to adhere to the Constitution?

Oh I remember now, they prefer judicial activism through judicial review (including review of the validity of Constitutional law according to Devil) as a result of Marbury vs Madison. That ratty old Constitution is just so quaint and old fashioned; it's really unnecessary because it's a living, breathing document as a result of Marbury, right ? +

This perverse attitude by democrats is part and parcel of the leftist "shut up" campaign so adeptly described in Klavan's video.

This is why I stay out of politics..... before this law passes, show me in the constitution where it says "require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes"

There's nothing in the constitution that says anything about most of the bills they pass. If every bill had to stand up to those standards nothing would get passed, matter of fact we could just throw out the addition of any new legislation altogether. The Constitution is the law above all other laws, bills need to pass that test.

Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Only limited by

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.



Beyond that, it's up to the judicial branch to decide if something is constitutional.

Richard S. wrote:The Constitution is the law above all other laws, bills need to pass that test.

The Constitution is not law.

The Constitution is a framework under which laws are created.

Richard S. wrote:Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.

So Congress can now pass a law restricting its own ability to pass future laws? And later, Congress can not repeal the restrictions law because there is no specific clause in the constitution allowing Congress to un-emasculate itself after it has once emasculated itself? Is that what we are arguing for? Golly, Alice, I wonder if there's any way out of this rabbit hole.

I wonder why those same Reps didn`t try to pass that when they had a chance ?

ErikLaurence wrote:Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Only limited by

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.



Beyond that, it's up to the judicial branch to decide if something is constitutional.

Don't forget the Ninth and Tenth Amendment:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

rberq wrote:So Congress can now pass a law restricting its own ability to pass future laws? And later, Congress can not repeal the restrictions law because there is no specific clause in the constitution allowing Congress to un-emasculate itself after it has once emasculated itself? Is that what we are arguing for? Golly, Alice, I wonder if there's any way out of this rabbit hole.

Not at all. It simply is a law that requires bills to contain a statement of the constitutional authority for the proposed law. It doesn't limit congress in what laws it can create but it does help the judiciary know by what authority the congress feels it is acting.

It is a reminder to congress that certain far-reaching laws created by the bailout and stimulus packages are possibly overreaching their constitutional authority.

This is a cautionary self-check and yes, it is political grandstanding by the republicans, to a degree.

mikeandgerry wrote:It simply is a law that requires bills to contain a statement of the constitutional authority for the proposed law. It doesn't limit congress in what laws it can create but it does help the judiciary know by what authority the congress feels it is acting.

If the judiciary feels it needs to know why congress acted as it did -- and the judiciary often DOES want to know -- then it reviews the record of debate surrounding the bill's passage. You can't sign a paper waiving your constitutional rights -- they are your constitutional rights, and that is that. Neither can congress waive its powers as the legislative body -- that in itself would be a ludicrous contradiction of the constitution.

What is being proposed by this (yes, Republican grandstanding) is similar in concept to the rules of the Senate, imposed by agreement among the senators themselves, whereby for example it takes the vote of 60 senators to cut off debate. But remember that the senators can change these rules any time they want -- the Republicans threatened to do that a few years ago when the rules frustrated their wishes. Fortunately more responsible minds prevailed. So yes, the House could impose similar rules on itself, by agreement, but not by law.

rberq wrote:If the judiciary feels it needs to know why congress acted as it did -- and the judiciary often DOES want to know -- then it reviews the record of debate surrounding the bill's passage. .

I want you to remember that quote when the constitution is being challenged by the judicial activists and insist that they review the Federalist Papers which are often overlooked as a source of intent.

rberq wrote:You can't sign a paper waiving your constitutional rights -- they are your constitutional rights, and that is that. Neither can congress waive its powers as the legislative body -- that in itself would be a ludicrous contradiction of the constitution. .

No one suggested this was happening.

rberq wrote:What is being proposed by this (yes, Republican grandstanding) is similar in concept to the rules of the Senate, imposed by agreement among the senators themselves, whereby for example it takes the vote of 60 senators to cut off debate. But remember that the senators can change these rules any time they want -- the Republicans threatened to do that a few years ago when the rules frustrated their wishes. Fortunately more responsible minds prevailed. So yes, the House could impose similar rules on itself, by agreement, but not by law
.

It's just a call to order: "Hey fellas, don't forget why we are here and the framework we have to follow! The people and the Founders are our bosses." The bill will die and everyone knows it.

rberq wrote: Neither can congress waive its powers as the legislative body -- that in itself would be a ludicrous contradiction of the constitution.
.

Read the congressional resolution to allow the president to use force in Iraq.

It essentially is the congress waiving their right under article 1 section 8 of the constitution and allowing the executive branch to decide if we are going to war.

Congress has the sole authority to declare war, they cannot assign that authority to the executive branch.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the whole war powers act of 1973 ever makes it the the supreme court.

mikeandgerry wrote: rberq wrote:You can't sign a paper waiving your constitutional rights -- they are your constitutional rights, and that is that. Neither can congress waive its powers as the legislative body -- that in itself would be a ludicrous contradiction of the constitution. .

No one suggested this was happening.

On the contrary -- that's exactly what I suggested was happening. Congress can't pass a law, binding on itself, that modifies its mandate under the constitution as the legislative body. Or I suppose they could pass it, but it would be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

rberq wrote: Congress can't pass a law, binding on itself, that modifies its mandate under the constitution as the legislative body. Or I suppose they could pass it, but it would be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

What you are saying does make sense in that congress cannot pass a law requiring that the introduction of a bill in congress must follow a certain procedure. To do so would require a change in the constitution.

I understand what you are saying but I don't believe their intent was to modify the congress' mandate. Their intent was to require congress to state its constitutional authority for each new proposed law. Congress does have constitutiona duties and limits. The intent was to force contemplation of those duties and limits to avoid making unconstitutional law.

This should be presented as a procedural rule, not a law.

But as I suggested...it's grandstanding....it had no chance of passing. It's for show. A rule change wouldn't catch the attention of the public or the press, hence the bill.